![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pandagon article on reproduction as a positive right.
Pandagon discuesses a book that posits child-bearing as a positive right
Anyhow, this book finds that there are a whole lot of inducements available to prevent lower-class African American women and/or welfare recipients from having kids. No forced sterilizations anymore, but subsidizing Norplant inserts with no funds available for removal (which is particularly problematic when it causes health problems).
Anyhow, I'm sympathetic to free coverage of birth control for both ideological and practical reasons. Similarly a universal health care system of my devising would probably cover both semi-permanent birth control and methods for removing said control.
However, I don't really buy reproduction as a positive right. I tend to think of positive rights as nigh necessities to living a fulfilling life or indeed living at all. There may be exceptions, monks vowing to do without something, but those exceptions are widely seen as making a great sacrifice. Moreover, even under a more generous welfare state, raising children takes a lot of work. Actively removing hurdles seems at odds with the responsibility being undertaken. This may change at some point in the future, although I'd be surprised if such a future came about anytime soon.
"To be clear about it, the liberal view of reproductive rights is that there’s a negative right to conduct your reproductive right free from government interference, which means that you have a right to use birth control, IVF, have a baby, have an abortion, whatever, but the government has no obligation to provide the means for these things. Roberts forwards an interesting argument that reproduction is so critical to basic human dignity that we should have government provide support to make our choices, and without generous welfare, public funding for birth control and abortion, and possibly some government control over IVF, reproductive rights remain something that’s available for a fee and aren’t really rights."
Anyhow, this book finds that there are a whole lot of inducements available to prevent lower-class African American women and/or welfare recipients from having kids. No forced sterilizations anymore, but subsidizing Norplant inserts with no funds available for removal (which is particularly problematic when it causes health problems).
Anyhow, I'm sympathetic to free coverage of birth control for both ideological and practical reasons. Similarly a universal health care system of my devising would probably cover both semi-permanent birth control and methods for removing said control.
However, I don't really buy reproduction as a positive right. I tend to think of positive rights as nigh necessities to living a fulfilling life or indeed living at all. There may be exceptions, monks vowing to do without something, but those exceptions are widely seen as making a great sacrifice. Moreover, even under a more generous welfare state, raising children takes a lot of work. Actively removing hurdles seems at odds with the responsibility being undertaken. This may change at some point in the future, although I'd be surprised if such a future came about anytime soon.
no subject
However, from the practical policy point of view, I think throwing money at the birth control side makes sense. I think it's safe to say that the amount of money people have available for birth control is not a primary or even a secondary limitation on the amount of sex they have. So the moral hazard problem here is relatively small. By comparison, the potential savings of preventing unwanted pregnancies are much higher. So I'd argue birth control is a good investment for society, even if it isn't a moral necessity.
no subject
And well, I've seen some people who do seem to think of having kids as a recreational activity/lifestyle accessory. And an awful damn lot 'em in this country love the hell out of IVF. If they want a baby so badly, they can pay for it themselves, just like I'd have to pay for a vasectomy myself.
no subject
The original source material was conflicted about IVF. Essentially the writer's view was why IVF when you can adopt. Which is true enough, although I'm not going to condemn people for wanting the same choices as the average person.
But yeah, I don't consider IVF a funding priority either for positive right or economic reasons.
no subject
Anyway, I look forward to a blog post in favour of positive rights.
no subject
Anyways, scan down. I did it as a comment in response to Rowyn. If there's enough attention I might do it as a separate post (although trying to get some work done may mitigate against that).
Pandagon commenters, like all political blog commenters, are friendly and open minded.
Or I could just cut out the middleman and tar & feather myself.
Re: Pandagon commenters, like all political blog commenters, are friendly and open minded.
Re: Pandagon commenters, like all political blog commenters, are friendly and open minded.